Sing It Again…


07/15/2013 by syrbal-labrys

Keep Calm…because, wasn’t there a song in the 70’s about Massachusetts? If not, there should be now, because at last a state has a way to help protect women from being murdered by ex-husbands and boyfriends. At last!! I am overjoyed that some state is finally holding the victim innocent and the guilty responsible.

Illinois, on the other hand, is acting like it is made of ass. Gee, a man can and should fire any woman that is “tempting” looking to him? What is next, purdah?

And I freaking can’t even THINK about India without wanting to burn my Mughal cookbooks.

Oh, and Go, Just Go! All week the Rude Pundit is away…and his stand-ins are pissed off Texas women! After all, it is summer, the time for BBQ…just like in Fried Green Tomatoes!

6 thoughts on “Sing It Again…

  1. badtux99 says:

    The Illinois decision was *very* narrowly defined on the merits of a specific case. In the case in question, the Illinois court decided that when a relationship between coworkers was causing problems in the workplace, it was permissible to fire the people involved in the relationship. And since the man in this relationship owned the business, there was only one person who could be fire. The looks of the woman had nothing to do with it.

    Now, if the guy in the relationship had *not* been the owner of the business, and only the woman had been fired, *then* I would see reason to be irate. But in this case the court decided based on the facts that the relationship between the woman and the man had been in fact much more than just a casual friendship, that it was causing problems for the business, and thus the business was justified in getting rid of the employee that was causing problems for the business. They specifically stated that their decision was *not* about the looks of the woman or the fact that she was a woman, it was about the problems the relationship was causing in the workplace.

    • syrbal says:

      A perceived problem, as perceived by the wife of the owner. I find that in and of itself rather peculiar. I somehow cannot imagine a court defending the firing of a handsome male from a woman’s business….because her husband thought him too distracting.

      But I freely admit, I just find the idea of looks being sufficient cause of a problem….OR conversation alone, that it boggles my mind in either direction.

      It very much harks back to loosing male friends…ONLY friends….as soon as they married. The presumption that men and women cannot be just friends is insulting to me. And the assumption that the subject matter of conversation must be different between males and females, especially if either one is attractive is likewise insulting.

      • badtux99 says:

        Apparently it went well beyond “just friends”. While the woman said she viewed him as more of a father figure than as someone she was sexually attracted to, he apparently was infatuated with her to a far greater degree and engaged in behavior such as extremely suggestive IM’s that would have gotten him fired for sexual harassment at any workplace that I’ve ever worked in. Thing is, he *owned* the business. He couldn’t exactly fire *himself* for sexual harassment.

        So in any event, as I said, the court very narrowly couched its decision to address this one specific situation where the owner of a business is sexually infatuated with one of his employees to the point where it is causing problems for the business. I mean, what else could they rule? That he had to keep her on as an employee? How, exactly, could they enforce such a ruling upon the owner of a business who presumably can decide to fold the business entirely the day after they ruled, thereby avoiding hiring her back anyhow? But in any event, the court was careful to note that this decision did *not* affect normal sexual harassment rules in larger businesses, and was only applicable to this one very narrow and specific scenario where the owner and his direct report ended up having… relation… problems. They really didn’t like the decision either, but it wasn’t as if there was any other good choice in this situation, and certainly wasn’t the “you can be fired for being too attractive!” nonsense that was spouted in the news. (No, you can’t. Not unless it’s the owner of the business doing the firing in a sole proprietorship with fewer than 20 employees).

      • syrbal says:

        I still find it repulsive that a woman is hired because of a male’s sexual attraction when she did not gratify him with sexual favors. For me, there is little difference between that judicial choice and the religious judicial choices in Mid-eastern countries that make women responsible….and punished for the lusts of men getting an odd view of ankle or wrist.

        Because the man could not be bothered to rule his own sexual fantasies, a woman is put out of a job….there is no way that is fair or right.

      • badtux99 says:

        I assume you mean she was *fired* because of a male’s sexual attraction. Yes, she was. And it was *not* because she did not gratify him with sexual favors, it was because it was causing problems for the business and the owner of the business couldn’t exactly fire himself. She worked for him for almost ten years, apparently, with nary a sexual contact between them, but what can you do? Yes, he should have controlled himself. But you can’t enforce a ruling on the owner of a business that he has to keep someone on payroll that he clearly can’t work with any longer, because he’s the owner of the business and thus firing himself is not possible and he can end the business the day after the ruling. The best outcome is that she find another dentist to work for, one who isn’t a creepy stalker. Easier said than done, but so it goes. There are greater injustices in the world to worry about, that’s for sure.

      • syrbal says:

        I’m not sure a woman trying to keep a job would find a lot of injustices in the world more worrying about…but obviously, we will disagree about the rationality of this ruling.

        I’m still convinced men would not find this terribly “right” if it was reversed and a handsome man could not “support himself and his family” because his face and body tempted a female boss. I’m pretty sure the woman would be extremely told that she better control her damned self by all people concerned.

        I frankly find the idea that someone cannot work with someone any longer because he is sexually attracted a pretty stupid idea. I’ve lost jobs for NOT giving into to a sexually aroused boss….and I still say, it is no different than a crowd of robed asshats in Afghanistan beating a woman for being leered at when the wind blows a veil awray.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


The name of this blog, and my Dreamwidth blog, Herlander Refugee, is taken from a 1915 feminist novel "Herland". It makes my heart sing that modern women are experimenting with creation of a new "Herland"! Yes, comments are closed. Anyone who just MUST reach me can do so at syrbal6 at gmail dot com.

Donate Here Please!

Skip coffee, donate a few bucks here!

Member of The Internet Defense League

%d bloggers like this: